Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Petraeus Puts the Icing on Bibi’s Iran Cake
Don’t just rely on Benjamin Netanyahu’s passionate advice to Congress on his way to reelection that Iran is our arch enemy. Now we have the counsel of retired general David Petraeus, who gave a remarkable interview this week to the Washington Post. Petraeus agrees with Netanhayhu: Iran, not ISIS, is the real enemy.
His message: “I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by – and some guided by – Iran.”
The general adds, “Longer-term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.” (Italics mine.)
Netanyahu is arguing against a bad U.S.-Iran deal that might end the economic sanctions and permit Iranian nuclear development after ten years. (Of course, nobody believes Iran will wait for, or permit, true verification.) But the thrust of the Petraeus interview is that unless U.S. military strategy completely changes, Iran is going to take over Iraq.
Petraeus gives ample evidence of this: These Shiite militias are being run by Iran’s top military man, General Qasem Soleimani. He’s the head of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard. He has been spotted and filmed on the ground in Iraq. And he has been making battlefield tours the way Petraeus did during the surge.
In the Post interview, Petraeus relates a remarkable story: In the midst of the surge, the general got a note from Soleimani: “General Petraeus, you should be aware that I, Qasem Soleimani, control Iran’s policy for Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.” (Italics mine.) Petraeus told the intermediary he could tell Soleimani to “pound sand.”
Overall, Petraeus makes it very clear that the current Iranian regime “is not our ally in the Middle East,” is part of the problem, not the solution, and is “deeply hostile to us and our friends.” Without ever mentioning Obama’s name, it’s clear that Petraeus is splitting from administration policy.
And isn’t all this what Bibi Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress? Didn’t he say Iran’s goal is to control the whole area, and of course attempt at some point to blast Israel off the face of the Earth?
So why are President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry trying to do business with Iran? If we know who the militias really are and know that Iran wants to take over Iraq and control the whole region, why is the United States talking about lifting economic sanctions and negotiating some sort of accommodationist deal with our arch enemy?
And why is the U.S. doing this with oil down 50 percent and Iran a high-cost producer? The economic table is set for a catastrophic fiscal blow to Iran — our enemy.
According to a Wall Street Journal news report, Iran needs $130.70 per barrel of oil to balance its budget. But the price of Brent crude is about $55, or roughly 60 percent below what Iran needs. It’s hard to get credible economic numbers for Iran, but it’s a safe guess that the budget is most of the state-run economy. Therefore, cheap oil is deadly for Iran.
So I ask again: Why are we helping them? We’ve got Iran on the ropes. Why loosen the sanctions?
Talking to the Post, General Petraeus acknowledges that we moved troops out of Iraq way too soon and in doing so sent a signal of weakness that we were pulling back from the Middle East overall. I would guess that these last-ditch efforts at an Iranian treaty will be perceived as even greater U.S. weakness in the Middle East.
Who knows if this can be stopped. Surely the Senate must vote on any U.S.-Iran deal. But the conundrum is, if we know Iran is our enemy, if we know Iran wants to conquer the Middle East, if we know Iran wants to destroy Israel, if we know Iran is continuing to develop nuclear weapons, and if we’re hearing all this not just from the Israeli prime minister, who has the burden of defending his nation, but also from a retired general who is out of office and has no skin in the game, why won’t the present administration come to acknowledge the real situation, reverse course, and halt any efforts to placate our arch enemy Iran?
Why do we even have to ask this question?
Published in Foreign Policy
This is so bizarre. It’s as if the last 12 years never happened, and all of a sudden we woke up and, just now, realized that we screwed up big time in Iraq. Oh, yeah, I forgot. It’s Obama now, but when it was Bush who let Iran take over Iraq…not a peep from Republicans.
Bizarro world almost. Iran has controlled Iraq ever since we put in power the Shiites in Iraq.
Everyone warned us: Iran will take over Iraq if you overthrow Saddam. The Shiites have allegiances to Iran.
Nope, we said. They want democracy. They will bring freedom to Iraq. So we put them in power. Then we armed them.
Since at least 2006, Iran has controlled Iraq. But now, all of a sudden, Mr. Bibi Netanyahu and Gen. Petraeus have figured it out enough to sound the “warning call”.
Bit late. Anyone that was paying attention already knew for nearly a decade. But now it needs to be “spun” as something else.
Maybe its really simple: In the clash of civilizations, Obama is on the other side. Anybody care to refute that?
And since you support Iran controlling the Middle East, I suppose you think this is a good turn of events?
Now wonder Obama wants to give them the bomb. It is starting to make sense.
Here’s the link to the Post interview.
Why should we care whether Iraq is dominated by Shia militias backed by Iran or Sunni militias backed by wealthy gulf paymasters? No need to take sides in this centuries long feud. They will fight each other until exhaustion.
Iran is only worse in the sense that it is better organized and more hierarchical. But that also means that it will be more reliable, some day.
Normally I would agree with you but this situation is anything but normal. We should certainly care if Iraq is dominated by an Iran that has achieved nuclear weapons capability and promotes terrorism outside its borders. We should care on humanitarian grounds if they are dominated by anyone (including ISIS) that is committing genocide.
I still wonder how long it will take for Western powers to realize that creating Iraq after WW I based on British and French interests was a colossal mistake. Why can’t we start by admitting that Iraq should be split in 3 parts so the warring factions (Kurds, Shia, Sunni) have some area to claim as their own? Something tells me it would not be as easy as it sounds, but keeping 3 enemies bottled up in the same cage is not an answer either.
?And your point.
Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that all you say is true (and note Bibi has been sounding the alarm over Iran for a very long time – just no one has listened). ?Are you now proposing that since we have just figured this out we should do nothing, as punishment for not figuring it out earlier.
?Indeed, just what ARE you proposing.
Yes, AIG wants us to do nothing. AIG appears to be in tacit agreement that America is the problem.
Mr. Kudlow, I don’t see you answering the question clearly. So, I ask: Why is Obama helping them?
It’s because Obama is anti-American and he sees America as the problem in the middle east (and most of the world) and he thinks that the Soviets were a good counter to us during that era and now he wants to help the Islamic world to come to the fore. America must be contained.
Because America is the problem — this has been a left-wing mantra since the Soviets started preaching this in the early days of the Cold War.
But, commentators are loathe to state this clearly. It gets them in trouble. But, you can write an article like this, imply horrible things but never state them. Why won’t our side fight in public?
The problem with trying to split Iraq, like trying to split any of the geographically drawn countries of Africa and Asia, is that ethnic rivalries over so many decades have made that really hard. People moved around so much that everyone has claim to practically everything. And what do you do for major cities where half is dominated by one side and half the other?
Horrifically enough, genocidal civil wars tend to solve this problem by forcing the two sides apart, so splitting Iraq is now becoming an option. But ten years ago it really wasn’t.
To Obama and the other globalists neither Iran nor ISIS is the problem – Israel is the problem. Isn’t that clear to Kudlow and everyone else by now?
That is the gist of Obama’s message to the Iranian people: the hardliners – people who support a Jewish state and American conservatives – are the obstacles to peace and to good relations among all peoples.
“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one”
Agreed.
But to offer a counter…Has anyone read Asimov’s foundation series? In the novel dealing with the first mayor of Terminus versus the Encyclopediasts, the latter were wholly concerned with the Encyclopedia placing above any other concerns. It was of course irrelevant, but it took their founder’s message from beyond the grave to get them to realize that.
Obama doesn’t love America, no question. But I still think he is more deluded and convinced of the genius of his plan than insidious.
LOL. As I said…bizarro world. You guys are amazing.
Don’t ask me what I’m proposing.
Ask yourself what are YOU proposing.
So again the question in all these Ricochet “foreign policy” debates is: are you interested in discussing reality…or are you interested in discussing talk-radio 30-second soundbite fantasies?
Because all these “Obama wants them to get the bomb”, “Obama wants to do nothing” etc. sort of descriptions…are pure fantasy. And not worthy of a debate.
Of course, if we’re being honest, the only thing that many people on here consider “doing something” about Iran, is…going to war. Bomb them, last Thursday! That is the only thing that, “you”, are proposing.
But at no point in time are “you” slowing down to ask yourself, if that is the best option at the moment, to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
That, doesn’t seem to cross anyone’s mind.
Nor does it seem to cross Mr. Bibi’s mind…one tiny bit…despite his own generals telling him that is not the best option.
But that’s a separate question.
The “thrust” of this post by Mr. Kudlow was that, somehow, Mr. Bibi in his genius and clarity and strong-iness as a strong leader, laid out the case that Iran is the main threat (I guess, ISIS was downgraded to JV status by the Republicans ;)…especially now that ISIS is on the retreat in Iraq ;) I wonder why).
And, that Gen. Petraeus supports this assertion.
And of course, “It’s Obama’as fault”. Cause, of course. What else could it be.
I’m simply pointing out that Iran taking over Iraq is by far nothing new. In fact, it’s what we encouraged for the last 10 years. Strangely, there were no criticisms from “the right” on this, for the last 10 years.
And, that Iran is fighting ISIS in Iraq. But apparently, we’ve decided that getting in the way of two enemies fighting each other, is a good idea.
Reasons, logic, alternatives, options, likelihood of outcomes, end goals etc etc…don’t seem to be particularly important to anyone.
Ah! I see!
A troll.
I’m starting to take that as a badge of honor these days. But I appreciate your efforts at attempting a response.
AIG, who wants to bomb Iran? No one said that but you seem to be worried about that. Why? Obama may well screw things up so badly that they will get or be close to getting nuclear bombs. And if it comes down to point where bombs are necessary to stop them getting nuclear bombs then we should consider that. Or maybe it’s none of our business and we should tell them that we won’t ever consider that? Or maybe we should be ambiguous so they don’t think it’s off the table. It’s certainly off the table with Obama — he wants to do a deal with them.
I don’t accept your notion that Iran taking over Iraq was our intention. I don’t know why you would say that. I agree that this is happening but there certainly hasn’t been the will to prevent it and certainly W didn’t want that. But you might know better.
(And you’re not a troll — you just seem confused.)
Agreed. No one has said otherwise. Hence, what would this be arguing with?
No one has said that. Hence, no argument to be had.
And here’s the problem. You’re wrong. Making a deal with them doesn’t mean that military options are off the table. Obama has said that…quite clearly.
Hence, it’s plainly not true.
You may disagree on whether a deal should be made. But that is not the equivalent of the criticisms which are thrown around, regularly, by “conservatives” against this approach.
I didn’t say it was our intention. I said it’s what we encouraged.
Our intention was to place the Shiites in power in Iraq. That is the equivalent of putting Iran in charge of Iraq. The two aren’t separate. Our…intention…was certainly to give power to the Shiite groups in Iraq which were “friendly” towards the US. Those were the same groups that were controlled by Iran, since most of those people, were living in Iran prior to 2003.
This clearly points out the folly of getting into these wars, without any idea of what we’re getting into.
It’s the only thing that seems to be sought by so many “conservatives”. If not war, then what? Since every other alternative being pursued, seems to be described as “weak” and equivalent to “letting Iran get the bomb”.
That’s why I asked…what is YOUR proposition? Please elaborate then, if “war” is not what you want.
Now, this is a ridiculous assertion — that because Obama has said it that it’s settled. Why do you believe him? Do the Iranians believe him? I doubt it — they see a weak president desperate to make a deal and absolutely determined to NOT have to use military force. And they know this. You should, too.
This is what this whole issue hinges on and you pocket this and go onto other things. Look, we can’t go into the other things until this is resolved.
We have been burned before and Obama is even sticking it in our eye by using Wendy Sherman for this deal and she was involved with the debacle with North Korea. He knows that and he has made no moves that make any America watcher feel comfortable with what he is doing. He MUST want them to have a bomb. I simply don’t see any other interpretations of what he is doing.
I suppose you have a less ridiculous assertion for claiming the opposite? Since no one has said, or hinted, that this is off the table, then what is it that you base it on? Other than your opinion?
So your evidence for what you’re saying is that “you know what the Iranians know”.
This, the same president that put in place the most sever sanctions on Iran, in 2010?
What is to resolve? You’ve got nothing to claim here other than your opinions, which are 180 deg the opposite of the facts.
How can we “resolve” this then?
This is just your opinion.
What is he doing?
You accuse me of being “confused”, yet you haven’t yet provided any evidence of what he is supposedly doing that you disagree with so much, other than your opinion which is solely based on the argument that “I don’t trust Obama.”
Fine. Don’t trust him. Hold on to your opinion. But realize that it’s just an opinion, and one that doesn’t have any facts backing it up.
And second, what is your alternative? You didn’t answer my question on that.
I won’t answer a question that is put with this context that you provide. Obama is a good guy? You can trust him? Fine. It comes down to that — it is foolish to trust this man. He means us harm. He hates this country. I’m not going to give you any more references than you do. We don’t share the same facts at all about anything. How can we talk about this subject whatsoever?
It’s impossible to have an alternative to a concept that is so muddled as you have presented this subject.
I’m actually coming around to the idea that Barry is looking to actively demonstrate American weakness, intransigence, etc., as part and parcel of some atonement for past sins. So not only does he remove US power in the Middle East, he takes it one step further and basically pats Iran on the back saying, hey, yeah – go ahead with those nukes. He said not a thing, nothing, during the Green Revolution, and we all asked then: Why? Why not say something?
Barry’s goals aren’t about fundamentally transforming America. That’s just a side benefit. He’s looking for global transformation, or global American atonement. So if a few ambassadors have to get killed with no retribution, hey, that’s just payback for prior American sins the world over. If Israel is eventually nuked by Iran – hey, we, the West, asked for it, by having a successful democracy in place where none had previously existed.
Raise taxes. Expand the role of gov’t in the everyday lives of citizens. Re-distribute wealth on a scale previously unimagined. Get more people dependent on the gov’t for their housing, food, health care, transportation – everything. De-claw the military. Give “flexibility” as our code-word to a resurgent Russia. Abandon former allies in Eastern Europe. Threaten and cajole a democratic Israel to demonstrate our lack of resolve to combat Islamic terrorism and Islamic states’ desires to see Israel destroyed.
Check, check, and check. The US and the world will be fundamentally transformed. We will all be transformed when we wade into the inevitable bloodbath this “transformation” will cause us.